[{"_1":2,"_98":-5,"_99":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,86],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6127680,"mediaKeyId","2661831-38b3ef6af1f476263b58618fc0b2b0cf","parentId",2661831,"title","Votes at a glance: Somerset Acres plan amendment, West Marion annex, sketch plan approved","audioSeconds",230,"startMs",1492000,"endMs",1722000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2661831-38b3ef6af1f476263b58618fc0b2b0cf&start=1492&end=1722","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2661831-38b3ef6af1f476263b58618fc0b2b0cf/thumbnail_1492000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6127680/Florence-City/Florence-County/South-Carolina/Votes-at-a-glance-Somerset-Acres-plan-amendment-West-Marion-annex-sketch-plan-approved","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6127680-9eb63f50c82e0c473e122d4813536e2d/orig.mp4?Expires=1775356047&Signature=PImFehj0NWIE8MMEAlIQz-w3AFlJIbW40-rL~uyN4iGgeQh~Oq5K~Pm1fmk-q~8me8YxxOueo9vLT3LIp5e42Pk44hPG8N~Q1YLbNX72y4CexyjMMdGQpUEIIKyaYFnEBh0dtL0EllgF2Hx4pQbxvoUURKZgg2YmpYmzUGdAr~OjXc9XoBW6hNs~DZp6BJx4929skdgOjC9dhIFW2SYnSIvMSKZVKhq2laCACeLm1yLzZubk2RB7aOIy~CQv~rOUlg6lVZehBjnIWV2ZlOaetve5Q73fIDN95OGdvs2qpDZPRSNZVN3i97dTL-zeitaaKREyHmuKlD-a7-rEkvo0Ng__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Florence South Carolina","date","2025-03-12T00:00:00Z","article","The Florence City Planning Commission approved three agenda items at its March meeting with little or no public opposition: an amendment to the Somerset Acres planned‑development district, annexation and zoning for a burned lot on West Marion Street, and sketch‑plan approval for a small subdivision. The commission deferred a separate Toscana Drive annexation for further discussion (see separate article).

Somerset Acres plan development amendment (PC2025‑13): Staff said the request would change the permitted density on a roughly 3.5‑acre corner of the Somerset Acres planned development to allow four additional multifamily buildings near Jefferson Drive and Cashewa Drive. The commission voted unanimously to approve the amendment; public comment was not recorded.

Annexation and zoning at 1006 West Marion Street (PC2025‑14): The commission approved annexation and NC 6.2 zoning for a parcel with a burned house so the owner could access city services and demolish and rebuild on the site. Staff reported the lot sits inside a municipal ‘donut hole’ and the action aligns with the neighborhood conservation future land use. The vote was unanimous.

Sketch plan approval (PC2025‑16): The commission approved a sketch plan to re‑subdivide two large vacant lots at East Pine Street and South Gaylord Street into seven parcels for single‑family homes subject to meeting UDO lot and design standards. The commission’s approval was routine; the parcels are city‑owned and the sketch plan process is an administrative requirement.

Outcome summary: Somerset Acres amendment — approved (unanimous). Annex at West Marion Street — approved (unanimous). Sketch plan PC2025‑16 — approved. Toscana Drive annexation PC2025‑15 — deferred for additional neighborhood‑developer meetings and technical checks.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","City of Florence South Carolina Live Stream 2025-03-12","oneSentenceSummary","At its March meeting the Florence City Planning Commission approved three routine items — an amendment to the Somerset Acres planned development, annexation and zoning for a burned lot on West Marion Street, and a sketch plan subdivision — and took no final vote on the Toscana Drive annexation (deferred).","taxTitle","Florence City, Florence County, South Carolina","taxId",4287,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":79,"_47":80,"_49":81,"_51":82,"_53":83,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":84,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":85,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6127688,"Planning commission defers Toscana Drive annexation after residents cite density, water and traffic concerns",0,2098000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2661831-38b3ef6af1f476263b58618fc0b2b0cf&start=2098&end=2098","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2661831-38b3ef6af1f476263b58618fc0b2b0cf/thumbnail_2098000.jpg","/articles/6127688/Florence-City/Florence-County/South-Carolina/Planning-commission-defers-Toscana-Drive-annexation-after-residents-cite-density-water-and-traffic-concerns","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6127688-5ceabdde3d248daa6a27bd3ba533ec81/orig.mp4?Expires=1775356047&Signature=diNVfqutNBgH7LFmlG~A5morAbTrGTNmvDXEI9Vq-qrlXsRFIP9cigK0o21gHWVsiDMw0k4vQj~uSfGHhSPmuHGhTJeLPFt-Nd7sPPMCjXz6lwEVm8tXyjmzcAWPMJPbQDqLHzxzOOP6EV3dGTD~iOj4cNTHZh65XhZeHkalVLFWxbYkOJkbhxpJNJkIT7av8yd7Ly3p~Kig0FTdqM11RbT3qtmIqFvw80-Kkbe09Cu3Z~fpMweX9NJXNKME0zHd7eQO6eKuGmVCzp88mvIHL3EXKt5Amj2Q5EUY~qHHqjrY-7CNHU0lUfIguo6Km3WXSMLXP7PKstx5MXM3rhxg~w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Florence City Planning Commission deferred a request to annex and zone a portion of a parcel on Toscana Drive to NC 6.3 after a series of residents’ comments and questions about density, water pressure, stormwater and neighborhood character.

The item before the commission was a request to annex a front portion of a county parcel at West Palmetto and Toscana Drive that the applicant said is intended for townhouse development. Staff said the annexation would move the parcel from county jurisdiction into the city and apply NC 6.3 zoning, which permits townhouses and other residential forms under city standards.

Homeowners from the adjacent Villa Toscana subdivision spoke in opposition or with concerns. Ken Winslow, president of the Villa Homeowners Association, said residents were told at a staff meeting that the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) density standard would limit the site to 26 units: “because of this, the Unified Development Ordinance, that the number of units that would be built here would be limited to 26.” Winslow also asked the city to check water pressure in the neighborhood; he said a prior fire‑department test recorded 35 PSI and called for the city to confirm valves and supply.

Resident Bob Litchman and homeowner Gloria Lucier raised related concerns about stormwater runoff, traffic and preservation of the existing brick entrance and landscaped right‑of‑way that Villa Toscana residents maintain. Lucier described the neighborhood as primarily single‑family, owner‑occupied homes and said the proposed dense rental development would be “completely different and incompatible with any of the neighborhoods around it.”

Staff told the commission that the UDO limits townhouse density to roughly one unit per 2,400 square feet and that a 1.4‑acre parcel would mathematically cap out at about 26 units before parking and other code requirements reduce that number. Planning staff also noted that buffers and landscaping requirements increase where higher‑intensity residential uses abut existing single‑family homes.

Developer Louie Hopkins, who said his team has considered 26–28 units, told the commission the parcel is unzoned under county jurisdiction and that annexation into the city is sought to obtain city utilities and development standards. “Our plan was originally to build 28 units ... and then after looking at it, I think 26 is the maximum we can build,” Hopkins said; he also said the project could be market‑driven as either for‑sale or rental product.

After public comment and discussion, the commission voted to defer the item to allow additional conversations between the developer, staff and residents. The commission’s deferral was put forward by motion and second and carried; staff said the item will return at a later meeting for further review or recommendation to city council.","The commission deferred action on a request to annex and zone a parcel along Toscana Drive to NC 6.3 after multiple residents and the homeowners association raised concerns about water pressure, buffers and the proposal’s potential density; developer and staff agreed to continue talks.",{"_33":87,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":88,"_41":89,"_43":90,"_45":91,"_47":92,"_49":93,"_51":94,"_53":95,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":96,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":97,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6127693,"Planning commission approves amendment to allow engineered \"fall‑zone\" setbacks for towers",1278,206000,1484000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2661831-38b3ef6af1f476263b58618fc0b2b0cf&start=206&end=1484","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2661831-38b3ef6af1f476263b58618fc0b2b0cf/thumbnail_206000.jpg","/articles/6127693/Florence-City/Florence-County/South-Carolina/Planning-commission-approves-amendment-to-allow-engineered-fallzone-setbacks-for-towers","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6127693-326defc162e64185961ce4aba4b46a99/orig.mp4?Expires=1775356047&Signature=KOwqnZ3TxjjoOB9c-29rQTGfAbX~G3vB2ax6amnTo6wcRZLSSkliMW7d9J2ogEnvk5Op8fIEghvGCIRWWPcoald23I8-fz-6x4mLY4o4z4e2Tr1IcGD6lafJ8gLhW3zUQr6oFYyBvMhCeCmmRRHfPCdH1gIn4i3272nvJAjMDXkRpS5kuEfDcviyljUqLJ6z2x0A7x6XDu~9ndGvvn7KvcVF6-6JAZmsdTYVVbLHFCcrIyotTNTlyjA7bNKI-YlwgoqxSZyvGx0gdtX5aFSPWJhwJJubDrwAQiXgG2BKKAdugY3PU-0Ob5xVnMri4Tq2FaQfnAh86JruXC0AL1c08A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Florence City Planning Commission voted at its March meeting to approve a text amendment to the city’s Unified Development Ordinance that would let developers measure required setbacks for tower and antenna structures from an engineer‑certified fall zone rather than from the full height of the tower.

The change was requested by Duke Energy so the utility can replace an existing, near‑end‑of‑life guyed tower on North Douglas Street with a newer, self‑supporting structure and still meet setback rules. Planning staff said the amendment would apply to the section of the code that currently requires a separation “equal to 1 foot for each 1 foot in height measured from the property line.”

Why it matters: the existing language effectively requires a 300‑foot setback for a 300‑foot tower; Duke Energy said modern engineered towers are designed to “fold in on themselves” and commonly have much smaller fall zones, so requiring a setback equal to full height can prevent replacing aging infrastructure at its existing footprint.

Planning staff described the requested change: the amended text would allow towers to be separated from a residential district or residential‑use property line by a distance equal to or greater than the tower’s certified fall zone, as measured and certified by a licensed professional engineer, rather than by a strict 1:1 height‑to‑setback ratio. Mr. Lawhon, presenting for staff, told commissioners that “towers have been designed now to fall in on themselves instead of just tipping over,” and that other jurisdictions have adopted similar wording.

Duke Energy representatives said the change is prompted by an aging 299‑foot guyed tower with a lightning rod that the company plans to demolish and replace. “The new tower will support ... Duke Energy’s future technology potential,” said Patrick Bernier, senior project manager for Duke Energy, adding that the company designs towers for long service lives and anticipates 50‑year lifespans. Engineer Caleb Jurgensen of Burns & McDonnell explained the structural approach: by designing lower members so failure points are higher on the structure, “under design conditions ... the tower would fold about itself as opposed to failing at ... the base of the tower,” decreasing the horizontal radius of collapse.

Commissioners asked about specific site impacts, the proximity of nearby houses (staff said a closest property line near the North Douglas site is about 75 feet away), and whether indemnity or other protections exist if a certified design did not perform as expected. Planning staff noted that the ordinance already requires indemnity as part of the special‑exception process and emphasized that a text amendment would not remove existing special‑exception review. Mr. Lawhon reminded the commission that, even if the amendment is approved, the plan for any specific replacement tower would still need to be reviewed and approved as a special exception by the Board of Zoning Appeals.

After questions and public comment from the Duke team, the commission voted to approve the text amendment. The commission’s approval will be forwarded according to the city’s review process; any specific tower plan will still require the special‑exception review and any other applicable permits.

The planning staff report and Duke Energy materials noted sample fall‑zone language used by nearby jurisdictions and argued that the change codifies industry practice for engineered, inward‑folding tower designs.","The Florence City Planning Commission voted at its March meeting to approve a text amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance that lets tower setbacks be measured from an engineer‑certified fall zone rather than the tower’s full height; Duke Energy said the change is needed to replace a near‑end‑of‑life tower on North Douglas Street.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Votes at a glance: Somerset Acres plan amendment, West Marion annex, sketch plan approved

Planning commission defers Toscana Drive annexation after residents cite density, water and traffic concerns

Planning commission approves amendment to allow engineered "fall‑zone" setbacks for towers